get_user_cards

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

It discloses useful defaults: user_id falls back to the current user and limit defaults to 50. However, with no annotations, the description could also clarify that this is a read-only operation and whether 'assigned' means only direct assignment or includes related associations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a concise args list. Every line provides necessary information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers all parameters and default behaviors. It lacks explicit usage guidance but is otherwise sufficient for invoking the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, including the default fallback for user_id and the meaning of optional board/column filters. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get cards assigned to a specific user', using a specific verb and resource, and the scope ('assigned to a user') distinguishes it from siblings like get_board_cards and search_cards.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through its parameters and default behavior (e.g., current user, optional board/column filters), but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_cards or get_board_cards, nor does it state exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.